Vinoo Cameron

July 2009

WE ARE NOT STUPID, we are trying to be helpful, this is America, what are you going to ban us for ? asking an explanation as to what you mean by "Verifiable" and if you are sure when you state the problem is really impossible(why dont you say that it might be impossible). In any case the matter is closed we have cited WIKIPEDIA at our site , under square of a circle, see at our site www.inverse19mathematics.com . You try and ban us , we will question your motive and your stance because we have done nothing but ask questions--Vinoo Cameron (talk) 22:55, 27 July 2009 (UTC)--Vinoo Cameron (talk) 22:55, 27 July 2009 (UTC) , they tried to ban Plato too for questioning Science.

Vinoo Cameron M.D , Theo Denotter--Vinoo Cameron (talk) 20:02, 25 July 2009 (UTC)--Vinoo Cameron (talk) 20:02, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

First: nobody is accusing you of being "stupid". Second, I did not threaten to "ban you". What I pointed out is that Wikipedia has a code of conduct, and that violating that code of conduct may get you blocked or banned (by the administrators of Wikipedia). Repeatedly putting up original research or violating the three revert rule would be an example of conduct that could get you blocked. Another example is posting from many different accounts (these are called sock puppets; follow this link to see what that is). I mention the latter because you made posts from two different accounts, the current one and one by the name of "Dodged". Should your behavior get you blocked, you will be welcomed to question their motives (or mine, for that matter) to your little heart's content; such threats are about as silly as the non-existing threats that incorrectly think were leveled at you. Third: no, "this is" Wikipedia, a global endeavor. The fact that you personally are posting from the United States does not mean that "this is the America". Fourthly, I mean by "verifiable": I pointed you to the appropriate page that describes the Wikipedia policies. The three Wikipedia core policies are: Verifiability, Neutral point of view, and No original research. If you follow the links, you will see explanations of just what those policies mean, and your attempted contribution to Squaring the circle violates two out of those three. Fifthly and finally: the reason we say that squaring the circle with a straightedge and compass is impossible is because it has been proven to be impossible. Unless you can find a flaw in that proof, clearly and explicitly, nobody will bother reading any attempt at a construction, just like nobody will try to read a proof that there is a largest prime without an explicit and clear exposition of a flaw in Euclid's theorem of the infinitude of primes. Be sure you understand exactly what the problem is, and exactly what the proof of impossibility says, before complaining. About 99.5% of all claims of "squaring the circle" fail to understand what the classical problem states or what a solution to that problem would be. And, no, I will not check your proposal; absent a clear and precise exposition of why the proof of impossibility is incorrect, it would be a waste of my time. Because of that proof, we can say "it is impossible" and not merely "it may be impossible", just like we can say "it is impossible to find an even prime greater than 2" (and not just "it might be impossible to find an even prime greater than 2"). Magidin (talk) 01:21, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Squaring the circle

Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, including your edits to Squaring the circle, but we cannot accept original research. Original research also encompasses novel, unpublished syntheses of previously published material. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your information. Thank you. Magidin (talk) 21:25, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Just a response

WIKEPEDIA Re "SQUARE OF A CIRCLE

We understand most clearly the policies of Wikipedia , but as we will prove to the National academy of sciences, we had an incident which tells a lot about our "verificatuion of research" that our mathematics paper with a funny name "Inverse 19, inverse zero" lay with a major Journal, never read for 8 weeks , because it was written by us a physician and a Pipefitter, not mainline Mathematicians. So we were told that the paper was found to be "not acceptable: in writing by an editor , BUT the two secretaries confirmed in writing that the paper was never read or released because there were technical problems and all the editor had was the "name of the authors". This is a major Mathematical journal, affiliated with an ivy league Mathematics. That is acaedemic dishonesty, it is for this reason we have asked the MIT department of Geometry and the University department of Mathematics to review our papers, and wikkepedia has to realize that much of the research nowadays is inbred and closely related, hardly the ground for good science.

Copy of this letter to the MIT department of Mathematics and to the University of Chicago department of mathematics and we will send it to the National acedomy od sciencesv , and we will reserch soon this mathematics further,

Thank you

Department of Mathematics, MIT, University of Chicago

PLEASE professionally review our method for square of a circle as submitted to you via your people formally, independantly and with strict review , and let us know , so that we can correct the inaccurate assertion in the Wikipedia that the Square of the Circle is impossioble because of a theorem from 1880 which is wrong. Failing this the inaccuracy will continue in Wikipedia.

When you add content, do not begin the paragraph with a space. That messes up the formatting. Simply begin typing. I've fixed your own entries now three times.

If you begin without a space, the material looks like this.

When you begin with a space, it looks like this.

As to your coments, again, Wikipedia is not the appropriate forum for you to air these issues. Note that it is possible to be blocked or banned from Wikipedia for violating its terms of service or its policies; I am not threatening you (I do not have the power to ban or block), just letting you know. As for your final plea, again, Wikipedia is not the appropriate place to request review of original research, professional or otherwise. Magidin (talk) 00:42, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

One might have one of one's papers callously treated by one journal and then dealt with respectfully by the next; the number of journals is large. But having seen your web site, I'm not surprised that your writing hasn't yet succeeded in getting published, since you don't seem able to write clearly. Michael Hardy (talk) 16:35, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Prime number

When editing talk pages on Wikipedia, please do not modify other participant's good faith contributions, as you did in this edit to Talk:Prime number. If it was done by mistake, that's understandable, but please try to be more careful not to do that in the future. --mwalimu59 (talk) 20:53, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

August 2009

Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or synthesis into articles, as you did to Riemann Hypothesis, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Magidin (talk) 07:17, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:About

Please refrain from making test edits in Wikipedia pages, such as those you made to Wikipedia:About, even if you intend to fix them later. Such edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment again, please use the sandbox. Thank you. --Cybercobra (talk) 03:27, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Squaring the circle

This edit is original research and cannot be reviewed by Wikipedia. Since Pi is generally accepted to be a transcendental number, this is also a WP:REDFLAG claim.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 11:34, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

New discoveries

Why are you trying to use Wikipedia as a forum to announce new discoveries? There are appropriate places for that. You can quickly upload a paper to the arXiv, and you can submit it to a research journal. Wikipedia has long had a policy against original research. See WP:OR. Michael Hardy (talk) 18:14, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

What does this mean?

You wrote:

180-PRIME NUMBER(less than 180)= PRIME NUMBER= OR PRIME NUMBER+180 =PRIME NUMBER, till infinity

That leaves me guessing as to what exactly you meant. That you write in a way that requires the reader to guess what you meant seems to be a big part of your problem.

So let's look at some guesses: The first equality could mean that if you subtract any prime number less than 180 from 180 you always get a prime number. Let's try that:

180 − 2 = 178 = 2 × 89

180 − 3 = 61 × 3

180 − 5 = 7 × 5 × 5

180 − 7 = 173 (this one is prime)

180 − 11 = 13 × 13

180 − 13 = 167 (this one is prime)

180 − 17 = 163 (this one is prime)

180 − 19 = 23 × 7

180 − 23 = 157 (this one is prime)

Some are prime and some are not. Either you didn't mean what you appeared to mean, or you were wrong. Let's assume your math was right. Then you must have meant something else. But what? It's completely unclear.

Your second equality could be taken to mean that 180 plus any prime number is always prime. Let's try that:

2 + 180 = 13 × 7 × 2

3 + 180 = 61 × 3

5 + 180 = 37 × 5

7 + 180 = 17 × 11

That's not working either. So you must have meant something else. If you can't make it clear what you mean, your efforts will accomplish nothing. Michael Hardy (talk) 18:00, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

See also WP:CB.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:06, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'm trying to presume everyone innocent unless proven guilty. Michael Hardy (talk) 19:52, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Someone from "Inverse 19 mathematics" gave worked examples here, though they claim 49 is prime. Hut 8.5 12:06, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Let's be honest here, most peer reviewed journals would have claims like this in the waste paper bin very quickly. Here at Wiki, WP:REDFLAG applies. For most of us, 49 = 7 X 7 so it cannot be prime. A suspicious person might suspect a hoax, but some people really believe this stuff.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:03, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

....and here's another thing you might have meant, if we can judge by some things you've written on other pages: a prime number minus 180 is always prime. Part of your problem is that you don't write clearly and we have to make these guesses. So let's try that one:

997 − 180 = 817 = 19 × 43

983 − 180 = 803 = 11 × 73

971 − 180 = 791 = 7 × 113

947 − 180 = 767 = 13 × 59

This also is not working. Michael Hardy (talk) 22:21, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

It looks like the Fields Medal predicted at [1] may have to wait. In any case, even if a range of examples did show that (Prime number -180) = Prime number , this would be hard to prove due to the infinitude of primes (Euclid IX.20). This would be a fascinating conjecture, but a single counterexample would be superabundant. It looks like a variation of the twin prime conjecture with a gap of 180 instead of 2. Nobody has managed to prove the twin prime conjecture yet. Since there are already various worked examples showing that the numbers produced are not always prime, the theory should either be explained more clearly, or it is time to go back to the drawing board.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:06, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

A consequence of this proposed theorem is that the prime gap would never exceed 180, and it would be apparent at a glance that no gaps of more than 200 occurred between prime numbers. This is clearly not the case, since prime numbers thin out well beyond this at large values. The largest known prime gaps can be found here.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 10:36, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

• I thought what he was trying to say (in part) was that (translated into vaguely normal mathematical terms), if p is a prime, the sequence p + 180n contains an infinite number of primes -- he seems to hint at that by looking for primes by repeatedly adding 180. Now, that is true if p is not a divisor of 180 (uh, right?), but hardly surprising or new. -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 19:40, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes; if a and b are relatively prime, then the sequence a+nb, with n=1,2,3,..., contains infinitely many primes. This is Dirichlet's theorem on arithmetic progressions. Magidin (talk) 20:10, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Short of developing psychic powers, nobody knows the exact meaning of this theorem. At Google Groups, it was explained as follows:

"This is serious Business to mathematicians , we are very close to discovering the predictabilty of prime distribution, bypassing the current elite drive for prime numbers discovery. The fisrt fellow that breaks the Calculus code here and solves the almost solved puzzle, will help Hope research, change the World and will be invited to join Hope research . The shocking discovery is that:

Prime number -189 = Prime, Please see attached also as

Prime-180 = Prime

191-180=11

193-180 =13

199-180 =19

211-180=31

223-180=43

227-180=47

229-180=49

283-180=53

See attached and also see prime predictabilty at WWW.INVERSE19MATHEMATICS.COM. code is there OR Google inverse19mathematics

THIS IS A DISCOVERY OF THE CENTURY-- We are opening it to all the oridinary mathematicians of the WORLD like us in the mathematical World to solve this prime thing fast within 3 months and predict all primes and prove Rieman which we have tried to prove. We can change the world and by pass the morass in current mathematics

Vinoo Cameron , Theo Denotter, Hope research, Athens Aug 4th 2009 Wisconsin"

Apart from the obvious fact that 49 is not prime, the theorem in this form contradicts well established evidence about the prime gap. Since Vinoo Cameron has decided not to respond to any of this, the theorem may (hopefully) be under review.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 20:08, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Vedic mathematics

I have read the page you referenced: [2]. It seems that your ideas are closely related to Swami Bharati Krishna Tirtha's Vedic mathematics. Is this correct or have I misunderstood something? Also, just of of curiosity, are you from India? 90.184.80.180 (talk) 02:53, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Prime number

As has been explained before, what you have written is original research. Please follow that link to read about how 'No original research' is a core policy of wikipedia. It really absolutely doesn't matter whether what you say is true or not. That is irrelevant. Whether what you have discovered is the most amazing thing since sliced bread is just not the point. The very fact that it is amazing new and surprising means it needs to be in a reputable journal first. The talk pages are for discussing improvements to the articles. Your contributions cannot be put into the articles and are not possible improvements at this time. Please discuss your research with someone who can do something about it rather than just posting stuff here that we are required by wikipedia to reject. Dmcq (talk) 19:30, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Please do not use talk pages such as Talk:Prime number for general discussion of the topic. They are for discussion related to improving the article. They are not to be used as a forum or chat room. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. See here for more information. Thank you. Oli Filth^{(talk|contribs)} 17:26, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
If you continue to use talk pages for inappropriate discussions you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Oli Filth^{(talk|contribs)} 17:42, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

• For the record, this is what was removed from Talk:Prime number:

All Prime numbers without exception are divisible by 0.25 to exact number

PRIME NUMBERS ARTICLE :This is a fact that should be stated because the Mathematics continuum is divided at 3:4, but check this out , we have already solved the mystery of Prime randomecity and told the AMS today . WITHOUT EXCEPTION ALL PRIMES NUMBERS ARE DIVISIBLE BY 0.25. to a non prime number divisable by 2. The mathematics world is going to be soon upturned by Inverse 19, see for reference only --Vinoo Cameron (talk) 17:24, 23 August 2009 (UTC)www.inverse19mathematics.com.

19/.25=76 7919/0.25=27596

• Dividing a prime number by 0.25 is the same as multiplying it by 4. The result will be not be a prime number and will be divisible by 2. Er, yes, and the Pope is a Catholic.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:55, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Riemann hypothesis

OK, let's say it again: Wikipedia cannot review original research. Please submit any new ideas to a peer reviewed journal.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 12:11, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Blocked

I have blocked your account for 24 hours for continuing to add original research to talk pages despite the warnings and guidance you have received above from other editors. You are welcome to make constructive edits after the block expires, but continuing the behaviour which resulted in this block will likely result in another block. If you wish to contest this block you may do so by adding {{unblock|your reason here}} to this page.Hut 8.5 12:14, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Since you evaded this block as Theo denotter (talk · contribs) and posted more objectionable material I have extended this block to 72 hours. Hut 8.5 16:54, 26 August 2009 (UTC)